**** NOTICE ****
This series of articles is presented with the permission of the
author, Cindy Duehring (per phone conversation on 10/4/95). For
considerably more extensive documentation on the hazards of toxic
carpeting and on other environmental/health hazards, please contact:
Cindy Duehring
Director of Research
Environmental Access Research Network
P.O. Box 1089
Minot, North Dakota 58702-1089
(701) 837-0161
**** NOTICE ****
CARPET ...
Part One:
EPA Stall and Industry Hedges
while Consumers Remain At Risk
by Cindy Duehring
"I'll never forget when it first started. I was sitting at a table
eating a sandwich and reading People magazine, with my ten-month-old
son, Christopher, nearby on the carpet. All of a sudden, he went
into this strange seizure-like reaction. His upper body tensed up,
and his arms started shaking, and his jaw moved kind of funny-like."
Jocelyn McIvers rushed her son to the doctor. He immediately
hospitalized Christopher, whose reactions continued unabated. After
a week of testing, the doctors ruled out multiple sclerosis, muscular
dystrophy, and tumors, but they couldn't identify the disorder.
Christopher was then taken to the head of pediatric neurology at
UCLA, who diagnosed "tremors of unknown origin."
"Christopher's EEG was normal, even during reactions, so his doctor
said it was either something occurring in the deeper part of the
brain [subcortical] or something different altogether," said Kevin
McIvers. "He told us their best guess was that there was something
dreadful going on neurologically. We would just have to wait and
see, and eventually it would get worse and the root of the problem
would show itself." The doctors tried drugs to suppress the central
nervous system, but they didn't stop the tremors. "So we were
waiting, just watching our son have all these terrible episodes,
forty to fifty a day, and not knowing the cause."
Because Christopher had been perfectly healthy until this point,
Jocelyn's father, a building contractor, suggested they consider as a
possible cause of the problem the new carpet they had installed in
their Santa Bar before the onset of the tremors. So Kevin and
Jocelyn, both lawyers, cautiously approached the carpet manufacturer
for information.
"Being a trial lawyer, I'm very aware of some of the shenanigans that
can go on over semantics, so I was very careful how I worded my
questions to the industry. I wanted the correct information for my
son's benefit. I asked specifically, 'I don't want to know if the
industry believes that carpet can cause problems, or if it's
scientifically documented or anything like that. Just tell me,
please, has anyone ever complained or claimed that they have had a
neurological or neuromuscular reaction of any kind to carpet?' And
the answer was, 'No. We've never heard ot it.'"
The manufacturer followed up their call with a letter a month later:
"You reported that your 11-month-old son has been experiencing some
allergy-type symptoms since your new carpeting was installed," the
July 18, 1991 letter stated. "We have not heard of any reactions
similar to what you describe." (1)
Christopher's tremors seemed to lessen when they were away from home,
so, on the advice of their doctors, the McIverses consulted with an
indoor air consultant. He advised them to steam-clean the carpet
several times and bake out the house by shutting the windows and
heating it to speed up the offgassing of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), then airing it for several days. They went through this
routine twice, while living at Jocelyn's mother's house for six
weeks. During that time Christopher's tremors had decreased. "So we
returned to our home and kept all the windows open. The tremors got
worse again but were still less frequent than before," said Jocelyn.
That October the CBS news program Street Stories did a segment about
Anderson Laboratories in Dedham, Massachusetts. At the request of a
number of people, the lab had tested certain carpet samples for
biological effects and came up with some disturbing findings. Using
a standard testing method (ASTM-E981), Rosalind Anderson, Ph.D.,
found that air blown across the samples was causing severe
respiratory and neurological/neuromuscular abnormalities and death in
mice. (2, 3) The television script highlighted the health problems
several families had experienced as a result of new carpeting. The
McIverses saw the program.
"So we had our carpet tested and sure enough, the mice were rolling
over and shaking just like our son did," said Jocelyn. "We were
horrified."
The McIverses immediately removed the carpet and pad, scraped off the
adhesive, washed down the entire house, baked it out again, aired
it, and moved back in December of 1992. "Since December
Christopher's tremors have entirely stopped," Kevin reports.
The more Kevin and Jocelyn learned about the history of toxic carpet
problems [see "Carpet Cover-Up Time Line" in this issue], the angrier
they became. "We felt utterly betrayed. The manufacturer we had
contacted was a major player front and center in the carpet industry
and had people on the board of the Carpet and Rug Institute [CRI],"
said Kevin. "Long before we ever called them, the CRI was very much
involved in the episode where over a thousand complaints were
reported by EPA workers made ill by new carpet in the EPA
headquarters building. (4) I know, at a minimum, they were well
aware of neurological complaints and very serious pulmonary
complaints from a number of EPA workers."
The incident in Washington had brought CRI into the Carpet Policy
Dialogue with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), as working agreement
between government and industry that was restricted to studying total
volatile organic compounds and not health effects. The dialogue had
been underway nearly a year, and the carpet industry was already
studying ways to reduce total VOCs in carpet and carpet-related
products, when Kevin McIvers called to ask about carpet concerns. (4,
5)
CPSC had received hundreds of complaints about carpet. In a
memorandum attached to a CPSC report obtained by the McIverses, dated
nearly a year before they had bought their carpet, CPSC presented the
results of their evaluation of complaints from 206 households about
respiratory and central nervous system problems attributed to carpet
and stated, "We are continuing to interact with the carpet industry
and will provide them with copies of these tudies for their
information." (6)
Two months before Kevin McIvers called the manufacturer of their
carpet for help, the New York Attorney General, Robert Abrams, had
petitioned CPSC to require warning labels on carpets. (7) Because of
the large number of carpet complaints, the attorneys general of
twenty-five other states signed the petition as well. (9) CPSC
refused to even consider their petition. (7, 8, 9) According to
Kevin, numerous lawsuits had by then been filed against the carpet
industry by individuals injured by carpet: "The industry
representative that I spoke to repeatedly on the phone when I was
looking for information on carpet was very compassionate and always
asked about Christopher's health. It wouldn't surprise me at all if
that guy sincerely believed carpet couldn't be a problem and there
hadn't been any history of complaints, and simply had been
misinformed by upper management. But somewhere in the corporation
someone has been making decisions about what information gets to the
public, and it is a real dishonest, hideous decision that is being
made. The direct result was that our son continued to live with the
toxic carpet for another year and a half, continuing to have
thousands of tremors, while my wife and I spent most of our time with
a knot in our stomachs, wondering when he would go further downhill.
And that's just unconscionable."
Although the tremors have stopped, testing on Christopher McIvers
shows that he has immune system damage consistent with chemicals
exposure, including autoantibodies (indicating that the body's immune
system has mistakenly identified its own tissues or cellular
components as foreign and has directed antibodies against them) to
the myelin in his nervous system -- a sign that nerve tissue damage
has occurred. (10)
His mother reflects: "I was extremely careful about what my baby
came into contact with. Organic chemical-free food and everything.
Even though I know better, I still feel guilty about the carpet. I
mean, I picked it out myself -- beautiful and expensive. I wanted
the house to be so nice, and then I poisoned my son with it. Looking
back at all this, we wished we had just ripped it out, but they
assured us the carpet wastn't the cause, and we just believed them --
which was really stupid, but we did."
"The general public needs to be aware," says Kevin McIvers, "that in
spite of two congressional hearings that have been held regarding the
toxic carpet issue (October 1, 1992, and June 11, 1993), the industry
is still giving a very imbalanced picture to anyone who asks, and
that's a great disservice."
At the October hearing, chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Dr.
Anderson reported that three of thirteen random, new carpet samples
caused adverse health effects. EPA responded that the health hazard
reported from 25 percent of carpets is not enough to require a
warning label on all carpeting and that it would be "unfair" to do
so. EPA was instructed by the congressional panel to replicate
Anderson's tests. (4, 11)
"The carpet industry has mounted a massively deceptive merchandising
campaign that intentionally misleads the public by implying that all
carpets with the green tag have met safety standards," say New York
Attorney General Robert Abrams. "First of all, there are no such
recognized standards of safety. CRI has sets its own arbitrary
standards. Secondly, CRI's testing program is completely inadequate
because it measure only a small percentage of the chemicals emitted
from carpets. Finally, a manufacturer can get a green tag for an
entire product line simply by having one small piece of carpet tested
once a year."
One of the carpets to pass the green tag testing is associated with
disabling the members of the Charles Fitzgerald family of West
Friendship, Maryland, who were exposed to it in their lighting store
in 1992. When tested by Anderson Labs, the Fitzgeralds' carpet
caused gross nervous system abnormalities in mice. It was then
analyzed by another independent lab, at the University of Pittsburgh,
with results that duplicated those of Anderson.
EPA and CPSC lent their names to the green tag program, and they have
increasingly come under fire for not fulfilling their role as
protectors of the public interest. (4, 12) "The Consumer Product
Safety Commission receives hundreds of complaints and inquiries each
year about the adverse health effects associated with the materials
used to make carpet," said Abrams. "Yet the government has chosen to
sweep this problem under the rug by ignoring the public's health
concerns as well as my request to disseminate meaningful information
about potential carpet hazards."
When EPA investigated carpet complaints from its headquarters
building, it published a report showing a positive correlation
between EPA worker complaints and new carpet, according to an EPA
Senior Scientist, Bill Hirzy. (4, 13, 14) Despite its own study, and
the removal of 27,000 square yards of carpet from the headquarters
building in 1989, EPA published a public information brochure,
"Indoor Air Quality and New Carpet: What You Should Know," which
states, "Limited research to date has found no links between adverse
health effects and the levels of chemicals emitted by new carpet."
(15)
There was no scientific basis for the brochure's statement, admitted
Bob Axelrad of EPA during an interview on CBS "Evening News." (15)
He went on to say that the brochure was formulated during the
Carpet Policy Dialogue and constituted a compromise with industry.
(16)
"My sense is that EPA is avoiding the issue because they don't want
to participate in a financial massacre of industry," said Hirzy,
speaking as president of EPA Union Local 2050. "And there is a
certain amount of investment in reputation by peopel in EPA who early
on said carpet wasn't a problem. Industry won't publicly admit
there's a problem because of the liability. In the meantime, how
many lives have been and will be devastated?"
"To date we have tested over 400 carpet samples," said Dr. Rosalind
Anderson. "Of the carpets sent in by persons with health complaints,
at least 90 percent have shown severe neurological effects.
Approximately 25 percent of new carpets, ones that have never been
installed, have been deadly. We've found death in mice from a new
sample just sever square inches at room temperature."
In a side-by-side test conducted at Anderson Labs, EPA replicated
Anderson's work. "The EPA people even picked out a new carpet sample
for the test run themselves, so there couldn't be any accusation that
Dr. Anderson deliberately picked a contaminated sample," said Kevin
McIvers. The side-by-side test was videotaped with Anthony Pollina,
aide to Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), as a witness. "EPA found the
same neurological effects and death in mice as did Dr. Anderson,"
said Pollina.
Then, when EPA returned to its own labs, "instead of duplicating what
Rosalind Anderson did, as they were charged to do at the October '92
carpet hearing, EPA created its own protocol," said Hirzy. "They
replicated Anderson's results at her lab, but when EPA scientists
used bottled air in their own lab and bubbled it through water to add
humidity, the humidity changed the result. What they found was that
humidity reduced the toxicity, so apparently whatever the toxins are,
they are soluble in water at low levels."
After Anderson Labs changed their protocol to humidify the air in the
same manner as EPA had done," we found it removed the toxic effect as
well," said Anderson. When they passed air over a toxic carpet
sample and bubbled it through water, the air was not toxic to the
mice. So they took that water and exposed the mice to it in the form
of a mist. "Lo and behold, the toxic effect had been removed from
the air and put into the water. We were now seeing the same
enurotoxic effects from the water, including death, said Anderson.
"We found the same results when we injected the water into the
muscles of the mice. We used appropriate control mice, which were
totally unaffected by water that wasn't exposed to the carpet air.
So something very bad was coming off that carpet, which can be
trapped in water. It's really an exciting finding, actually. All
that needs to be done now if for someone to analyze the water and see
what the chemicals are."
"It cries out for follow-up," said Hirzy. "what is in the water
that's killing mice? The chemicals in the carpet have already been
isolated by the water, so all you have to do is test the water. But
it's a terribly expensive process, so a private lab couldn't fund it
on its own."
"We did not independently replicate the severe toxicity described by
Anderson Laboratories," reported EPA at the carpet hearing held on
June 11, 1993, before the House Subcommittee on Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources. (17) The hearing was held to discuss EPA's
findings, according to Congressman Sanders' aid Pollina. But instead
of talking about the positive implications of its discovery, EPA
simply denied replicating Anderson's tests and then reiterated the
stance taken in its brochure: "We do not have a sound basis for
concluding exposure to carpet emissions presents a health risk." (17)
Under corss-examination, EPA admitted having changed the protocol and
having had problems monitoring humidity. (11, 18, 19) "EPA's
presentation before Congress was confusing at best," said New York
Environmental Protection Bureau Assistant Attorney General Gail
Suchman. "It hasn't answered our request, which is to get the right
information out to the public."
Congressman Sanders and Subcommittee Chairman Mike Synar (D-OK) were
especially critical of EPA for "dragging its heels." Said Sanders:
"I am extremely disturbed that after months of promises to get to
work on this issue, the EPA has failed to accurately replicate Dr.
Anderson's tests, has failed to talk to a single doctor whose
patients have suffered ill health effects from carpeting, and has
failed to make any serious effort to identify which chemicals are
causing the problem." (20)
At the hearing Ron VanGelderen, president of the Carpet and Rug
Institute, testified that current research suggests that "carpet
itself does not adversely affect public health." (21)
Pollina reports that under corss-examination "the three people from
industry were kind of hedging and giving conflicting answers and then
the chairman basically said, hey, wait a minute, you're under oath.
There can be only one answer to this question. Either people are
getting sick from carpet or they're not. The industry guys kind of
looked at each other, and then one of them said something to the
effect of, well, if you consider an allergy-like reaction to be an
adverse health effect, then yes, I suppose you could say carpet
causes problems for some sensitive people."
"One of the best things that happended at the hearing," Pollina adds,
"was industry admiting under oath, that yes, carpet can cause
problems in some people. The term allergy-like can mean just about
anything, but at least they admitted that carpet could be the cause
of it."
The same day of the hearing, CRI issued a press release stating:
"The scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that carpet
itself does not adversely affect public health." (22)
VanGelderen's testimony cited EPA and CPSC as not finding scientific
evidence to warrant concern over carpet. He blasted Anderson's test
method, calling it "irrelevant to the debate on indoor air quality."
(21) Yet just six days before Anderson went public with her test
findings, CPSC had distributed a report recommending the use of the
same testing method (ASTM-E981) for carpet that Anderson was using.
The report analyzed the final results of a carpet testing study
conducted by interagency agreement. It warned that measuring total
VOCs, the measure used by the carpet industry's green tag program, is
"probably not adequate as a standard to protect health." (23)
The health effects of the many chemicals the scientists found
offgassing from carpet are for the most part unknown, the CPSC report
stated. It then recommended the test founded by Yves Alarie, Ph.D.,
the ASTM-E981, calling it a "standard method" that "could be used to
make reasonable predictions of effects in humans over a wide range of
concentrations." (23).
"Dr. Alarie of the University of Pittsburgh was hired to develop the
ASTM-E981 in the 1960s by the U.S. Department of Defense to test for
the potency of nerve gases to be used by the U.S. Army in Vietnam for
cleaning out tunnels," said Mark Goldman, manager of Anderson Labs.
"It was later used by the pesticide industry. It came from the camp
of the manufacturers frankly."
Alarie, who had been hired by CRI in the past, testified at the June
hearing that when Anderson first released her test results,
VanGelderen asked him to verify her test protocol. After Alarie
visited her lab and reported that "her description of the effects
observed was correct and her experimental design was valid,"
VanGelderen hired Alarie to see if he could replicate her work for
CRI. (24)
Alarie testified that he replicated her results four time: "Her
results are perfectly reproducible in my laboratory." (20)
In his testimony Alarie expressed concern about the many rumors being
spread to try to discredit Anderson's work: "As results of
neurotoxic effects and death were reported by Dr. Anderson to be due
to volatile emissions from carpets, rumors were circulated that these
effects were due to the exposure method -- i.e., placing the mice in
restraining tubes as described in the ASTM-E981 method." Alarie
conducted additional testing over even longer periods of time "in
order to satisfy those rumor generators," and proved the restraints
were absolutely not a problem. (24)
A CRI press release issued on the day of the hearing quoted one of
its experts regarding the restraint: "[The tests] are tantamount to
lacing up a human being in a strait jacket and repeatedly choking him
for two days." (22)
"Cretins will continue to spread their rumors, and there is not much
I can do about it," testified Alarie at the hearing. "This method
ASTM-E981 has been used all over the owrld and I have never received
a complaint from a user of it that the method itself produces
neurotoxic effects." (24)
Congressman Sanders went on record agreeing with Chairman Synar, whom
he quoted as saying that the testimony and evidence presented at the
hearing "remind us of EPA's past failures to protect indoor air
quality ... After years of complaints, consumers still have
difficulty in getting straight answers to questions about chemical
risks if they ask carpet retailers, or frankly, even if they ask
government officials." (20)
One week after the hearing, EPA's designated carpet spokesperson was
asked about the side-by-side EPA replication of Anderson's tests at
her lab. "There was no side-by-side," said EPA's Charles Auer,
director of the Chemical Control Division. He said the EPA had
observed Anderson's testing but had not replicated it." (25)
"We submitted the videotape of the side-by-side test to Congress as
part of our testimony," said Mark Goldman. "It's part of the
Congressional Record."
EPA plans workshops this fall with industry and Anderson Laboratories
to discuss whether to pursue the test results any further. "That's
just a government tactic for delay," said EPA Union President Hirzy.
"It's designed to keep the industry covered. There are some hot
leads here. We have human evidence that people are getting
respiratory, neurological, and immunological injury from carpet. If
I were industry, I'd be scurrying around behind the scenes trying to
find out what's in the air and the water that's killing those
critters, and then working to reduce it. And if EPA can keep things
stalled up by pushing for workshops and time-consuming quote 'peer
reviews,' and all sorts of delay mechanisms, that mutes out a lot of
lawsuits."
Congressman Sanders' office wants action. "Number one," said Pllina,
"We'd like to see EPA sit down and have some serious talks with a
group of doctors who can help them make the connection to human
health. Number two: We'd like to see industry not just come up with
a good warning label but also suspend the green tag program. Number
three: The water that trapped the carpet fumes must be tested to
find what the toxins are so the manufacturing process can be
changed."
CRI has agreed to work on a new additional warning label with the New
York attorney general's office, which recently published a report:
"Carpet and Indoor Air: What You Should Know." The report
counteracts the EPA brochure by warning about the possible hazards of
carpet and calling for the suspension of the green tag program.
"Our focus has been to get the right information to the public. EPA
and CPSC have been totally unresponsive to all of our requests to get
that information out to the public, which is why we wrote the
report," stated Gail Suchman of the New York attorney general's
office. "We are willing to work with CRI to establish a new consumer
information program, including some sort of warning or informational
campaign so the public can make an informed decision."
Congressman Sander's office has been in touch with a number of
doctors from a variety of specialties who all have one thing in
common. They are seeing an increase in chemical injuries, including
cases where people have been made ill by carpet. "Some of the dotors
are in the process of drafting short statements to present to
Congressman Sanders," said Pollina. "The statements will say in
effect that in recent years toxic injuries have become more common,
and as that has happened, their ability to diagnose chemical injuries
has improved. Further, based on what they are seeing and the
diagnostic procedures they are using, including objective
neurological testing, patient history and a process of elimination,
it is their medical opinion that their patients, both children and
adults, are being affected by the chemicals offgassing from carpets
and that there needs to be more research."
Sander's staff hopes that EPA and industry will meet with some of
these doctors in the near future. Pollina added, "The carpet
industry has committed themselves to develop a whole array of
information for consumers, retailers, and installers, which we expect
to be an improvement over the earlier information they were
circulating. They've also stated they will research the problem.
We'll see what happens. Time will tell."
The following states have all signed the New York attorney general's
petition to CPSC, which would require warning labels on carpet and an
adequate public information campaign: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. To voice concerns over
carpet safety, contact your own state attorney general's office and
ask the staff to contact the New York attorney general's office.
Write your state senators and representatives at:
[your senator]
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
[your representative]
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
For more information on the hazards of carpet, consult:
"Carpet and Indoor Air: What You Should Know,"
authored by four state attorneys general, June 1993,
available free from:
New York State Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271
Citizens for Safe Carpet
P.O. Box 53344
Cincinnati, OH 45253-0344
(513) 385-1111
Glen and Sharon Beebe, authors of "Toxic Carpet III,"
provide a support group and information exchange.
The Book "Toxic Carpet III" is available at the above
address for $12.95 PLUS $4.OO S&H.
Environmental Access Research Network (EARN)
315 W. 7th Avenue
Sisseton, SD 59645
For a list of carpet-related articles, studies, and
reports available from EARN's photocopying service,
send $1.00 and request "Carpet List."
EPA Union NFFE 2050
P.O. Box 76082
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 260-2383
Carpet Cover-Up Time Line
1980
----
First documented case of people becoming sick after carpet
installation. Glenn and Sharon Beebe become ill from carpet
installation at their business building in Cincinnati. (26) They
have now documented several thousand cases of carpet-related
complaints dating back to 1972.
1986
----
The Beebes send thousands of notices to industry, medical personnel,
government agencies, and consumers. (26)
October 1987
------------
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) begins carpet installation
in its Waterside Mall headquarters building, and employees complain
of ill health from the fumes. A total of 1,141 complaints are
received. To date, at least twenty people are still unable to work
in the building. (4, 27, 28)
May 1988
--------
Over 100 EPA emplyees hold a rally in front of EPA headquarters to
demonstrate their concern over air quality, the toxic carpet in their
building, and EPA's refusal to acknowledge the problem and take
action. (4)
August 1988
-----------
EPA establishes a policy of not using carpet containing the chemical
4-phenylcyclohexene (4-PC) in headquarters facilities and starts
accommodating injured employees. Officially denies they are "real"
injuries and claims that carpet poses no problems. (4)
May 1989
--------
EPA is involved in a joint project with CPSC to study carpet
complaints. EPA management tells EPA union they will not use data
from their investigation into the air quality at the headquarters
building because they fear lawsuits. (4)
September 1989
--------------
As a result of its indoor air quality study, EPA removes the carpet
from its headquarters. A total of 27,000 square yards are replaced.
(4, 13, 14)
September 1989
--------------
"The freshly manufactured carpet clearly caused the initial illness,"
EPA's Director of Health and Safety tells "Washington Times." EPA
management removes him from that job within a few weeks.
March 1990
----------
EPA management tells union "off the record" that because the union's
petition to EPA to start testing and regulating carpet emissions
could potentially cost the carpet industry "billions of dollars," it
will not grant the petition. (4)
April 1990
----------
EPA publicly denies the union petition. EPA's Indoor Air Division
director privately tells attendees at an indoor air conference in
Virginia that "everyone knows the new carpet made people sick," while
publicly denying the same. (4)
June 1990
---------
The EPA union files suit over petition denial. Court grants EPA's
motion to kill the suit. (4)
August 13, 1990
---------------
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) distributes a
memorandum regarding the evaluation of carpet complaints from 206
households. The memorandum states that they have been interacting
with industry on the topic and will continue to do so. (6)
August 21, 1990
---------------
EPA convenes a Carpet Policy Dialogue with floor-covering industries
(including CRI) and other government agencies. The dialogue is
restricted to studying only total volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions and not health effects. (4, 5)
April 1991
----------
A consumer alert, "Chemicals in New Carpets Pose Potential Health
Hazards," is issued by New York Attorney General Robert Abrams. (29)
April 10, 1991
--------------
New York Attorney General Robert Abrams petitions CPSC to require
consumer warning labels on carpet. (7) In time twenty-five other
state attorneys general sign the petition. (9)
June 1991
---------
EPA publishes the result of the air quality investigation into worker
complaints in its headquarters building. Volume 4 establishes a link
between adverse effects and carpet. (4, 12, 28)
June 1991
---------
Kevin McIvers calls Monsanto carpet manufacturer when his
ten-month-old son, Christopher, develops tremors and has to be
hospitalized five days after carpet installation. Kevin reports
being told they had never heard of that type of complaint before and
that it could not be caused by the carpet.
September 6, 1991
-----------------
Carpet Policy Dialogue is concluded. A public information brochure
has been prepared, and industry has agreed to take steps to measure
VOC emissions in their products and to take steps to reduce them. (4,
5)
October 1991
------------
CPSC refuses to docket the New York attorney general's petition to
require warning labels (4, 8)
March 1992
----------
EPA brochure is published, claiming that no links have been found
between carpet and ill health. (15)
May 1992
--------
The carpet that disabled the Fitzgerald family of West Friendship,
Maryland, and killed several mice with the ASTM-E981 testing at
Anderson Laboratories (Dedham, Mass.) passes the carpet industry's
testing program and qualifies for a Green Tag. (30)
July 17, 1992
-------------
CRI announces its Green Tag program in a press release. (31) The
program tests only one carpet sample from each carpet type once a
year -- a test based only on total VOC emissions, not biological
health effects. EPA and CPSC lend their names to the program. (4,
31)
August 13, 1992
---------------
A CPSC report states that measuring total VOCs is "probably not
adequate as a standard to protect health" and recommends the
ASTM-E981, developed by Dr. Yves Alarie. (23)
August 18, 1992
---------------
After presenting their findings to EPA management and industry and
receiving no response, Anderson Labs goes public with test results of
carpet fumes killing mice, using the ASTM-E981 testing method. (2)
August 21, 1992
---------------
CRI has Dr. Alarie check out Dr. Rosalind Anderson's testing
technique. Dr. Alarie reports that it is scientifically valid. CRI
hires him to replicate Anderson's tests in his labs. He finds the
same neurotoxic results four times. (24)
September 1992
--------------
The EPA union files a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and
EPA's Indoor Air Division, claiming the Green Tag program to be
fraudulent and a danger to public health. (4)
October 1, 1992
---------------
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) holds carpet hearings. Dr. Anderson
says 3 of 13 random, new carpet samples tested caused adverse health
effects. EPA replies that the health hazard reported from 25 percent
of carpets is not enough to require a warning label on all carpeting
and that "it would be unfair" to do so. EPA is given a charge to
exactly replicate Anderson's test exactly. (4, 11)
October 29, 1992
----------------
CBS "Evening News" and "Street Stories" air segments on problem
carpet, Anderson's findings, and the Fitzgerald story. When
questioned about EPA's carpet brochure, which states that research
has found no link betwen adverse health effects and carpets, EPA's
Bob Axelrad admits there is no scientific basis for that statement
and that the brochure represents a compromise with industry. (16)
November 6, 1992
----------------
Testing of McIvers' carpet shows in mice the same type of tremors and
neuromuscular reactions their infant son had. They remove carpet,
and their son's reactions stop. (32)
January 1993
------------
EPA is videotaped replicating Anderson's test results in a
side-by-side test at Anderson Labs with Rep. Bernard Sanders' aide,
Anthony Pollina, as a witness. The mice have respiratory and
neuromuscular reactions, and some die. (11)
January 27, 1993
----------------
Blood testing of Christopher McIvers shows immune system damage
consistent with chemical injury. (10)
February 1993
-------------
Anderson's paper "Toxic Emissions from Carpets" is presented at an
international conference and accepted for publication in a
peer-reviewed journal. (33)
March 1993
----------
In its own lab EPA changes Anderson's protocol instead of replicating
the test.
April 1993
----------
CRI distributes a letter to members of the carpet industry, including
retailers, assuring them that "extensive research" by EPA and others
failed to discover any link between carpet and ill health. Letter
provides sample statements for retailers to use in assuring the
public that carpet is safe and to cast doubt on Anderson's testing.
(34)
June 1993
---------
Four state attorneys general (N.Y., Vt., Conn., and Oreg.) prepare a
report, "Carpet and Indoor Air: What You Should Know," which warns
the public about the misleading nature of the green tag program. The
report is sent to CRI and carpet manufacturers along with a request
that they withdraw the green tag program. (35)
June 11, 1993
-------------
A second carpet hearing is held before Congress regarding EPA's work.
EPA testimony states that its scientists were unable to replicate
Anderson's findings. Anderson submits the videotape showing EPA's
replication of her findings in the side-by-side test. EPA admits
having changed the protocol in its own lab. Under cross-examination,
industry admits that some people may experience adverse effects from
carpet, and the Carpet and Rug Institute agrees to work on a new
additional label with the New York attorney general's office. CRI
also agrees to fund more research into carpet and work with EPA on
it. The same day, CRI issues a press release stating that "carpet
itself does not adversely affect public health." (11, 17, 18, 19, 22,
36)
June 18, 1993
-------------
Contradicting the videotape presented at the hearing, EPA's Charles
Auer, director of the Chemical Control Division and current official
spokesperson to the public on carpet, states when questioned about
the result of EPA's side-by-side test with Dr. Anderson: "We never
ran a side-by-side." (25)
July 4, 1993
------------
When Dr. Anderson presents two papers at "Indoor Air '93, the Sixth
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate" in
Helsinki, Finland, she is approached by many researchers from around
the world who tell her that they are seeing similar carpet-related
health problems that this is a worldwide dilemma. (18)
Bill Hirzy on Resolving Toxic Carpet Controversy
Bill Hirzy, Ph.D., speaking as president of EPA Union Local 2050,
believes the carpet issue could be resolved in a rational way. He
states: "Carpet is a reasonable and important part of our society.
There are a lot of jobs in it and there is a lot of economic value in
keeping the industry going. Certainly, nobody wants to see the
industry destroyed. There is no question that the industry doesn't
deliberately want to hurt people. Of course they don't. But they do
have legitimate concern that their stockholders will lose a lot of
money, and they may not survive if there is unlimited liability.
What has to happen is that industry, EPA, and CPSC must own up to
past problems and take steps to prevent future ones in an honest way.
"I think there is a way to address the issue and warn the public
without bankrupting the industry. A conference needs to be held with
the possible plaintiffs, industry, a regulatory agency, and a
public-advocacy-type group. They need to sit down and hammer out
ways to compensate people who have been injured so far and begin a
very aggressive and forthright program of warning consumers that
there appear to be some individuals who, when exposed to certain lots
of carpeting, are in danger of profound adverse health effects.
"This conference would need to come to an agreement made binding by a
legislative or judicial finding that limits the liabiilty of
industry, compensates those already injured in a timely manner, and
protects the industry from future liability once they've come clean
and have issued accurate public service announcements and adequate
warning labels on each roll of carpet. Once industry has honestly
and forthrightly informed the public of the risk, then by purchasing
their product, the public is consenting to take on that risk, and the
industry should be free of liability. Similar to the warning label
on a cigarette package. But right now the pubic is being stonewalled
by a bunch of lies from industry and from the EPA, so they don't even
have the opportunity to make informed decisions."
What Do You Do If You Want Carpet?
Not all carpets are problem carpets. Anderson Labs has found no
toxic effects in about three-quarters of the new carpets tested (ones
that have never been installed). (18) For consumers the issue is
knowing whether the carpet they want will pose a health risk. There
is no easy answer to that question because the chemicals causing
problem carpets has not yet been determined.
If you wish to purchase carpeting, you can take steps to minimize
total exposure to the chemicals found in it. But while reducing
total volatile organic compound (VOC) exposure will lessen the amount
of toxins the body has to deal with, it may not be an adequate
measure for health protection, according to a Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) report. (23)
"Based on what's happening out there and what we're seeing with our
carpet testing," said Dr. Rosalind Anderson of Anderson Labs in a
telephone interview, "I think we have to conclude that there must be
some ongoing process that we don't know about yet, continuing to
generate fumes over times. Something is breaking down very slowly
and consistently and whatever it breaks down to is bad news. It's
probably some combination of chemicals forming new compounds that
we're not expecting."
A consumer alert put out in 1991 by New York Attorney General Robert
Abrams advises caution: "People who smoke, have allergies, or suffer
from respiratory disorders may be more prone to experiencing symptoms
when exposed to new carpeting. Further, the chemicals pose a greater
risk to small children. Pregnant women should also avoid these
fumes, as they may be harmful to the child [in the womb." (29)
The following are suggestions for dealing with the problem-carpet
question. No guarantee of safety is implied or intended. People's
sensitivities vary greatly, so caution and common sense are advised.
1) To have your sample tested for biological health effects before
you install it, send a sample to Anderson Laboratories, Inc.
(802) 295-7344. The Homeowner's Test costs $350.00.
2) Negotiate with your carpet supplier an advance signed agreement
that should anyone in your household experience adverse symptoms
after installation, the carpet will be removed free of charge
immediately upon request.
3) Plan to have your carpet installed during a time of year when it's
warm enough to keep the windows open.
4) Have the carpet installed while you are on vacation, or make
arrangements to stay away from home for several days during and after
installation. Ask the carpet installer to unroll the carpet and air
it in a well-ventilated area for seventy-two hours before bringing it
into your home. Run exhaust fans and keep windows open during
installation. EPA and CPSC recommend leaving your windows open
several days afterward. Bear in mind, however, that if it is a
"problem carpet," according to health reports and testing at Anderson
Labs, no amount of ventilation will solve the problem. An
interagency carpet testing report warns: "Unfortunately, this
strategy might not have a major impact on the emissions of compounds
such as formaldehyde, 4-PC, and BHT, which do not decay rapidly and
which are possibly more important with respect to health effects."
(23)
5) According to Hendricksen Naturlich Flooring Interiors (see
below), some people who have reacted adversely to synthetic carpet
have fared better with woven wool carpet. Nearly all wool yarn,
however, is treated with pesticide mothproofing in the manufacturing
process. Naturlich recommends taking a samle home and testing it for
adverse reactions before buying it. If you are sickened by inhaling
fumes from a small sample, you might regret covering an entire room
or house with it. Use caution and common sense.
Woven carpets use far less latex than other carpet types because the
weaving process avoids the heavy latex used for gluing the secondary
backing to the primary backing. In general, woven wool carpets have
fewer total volatile offgassing compounds than the average synthetic
carpet with a glued back. Naturlich and Bremworth Carpet (see below)
are both looking into sources for providing 100 percent organic wool
carpet without mothproofing. As soon as this becomes available,
"Informed Consent" will report on it. [Contact E.A.R.N. for the
latest information.]
6) According to tests by the carpet industry, synthetic carpet pads
and cushions commonly used under carpet have a VOC level of 1.24
(EPA's flooring guidelines say no product should have VOC levels of
.6 or more). (37) Low VOC synthetic jute padding, constructed
without glue, is available from Hendricksen Naturlich Flooring
Interiors.
7) Tacking the carpet down, instead of gluing it, will eliminate at
least one potent source of offgassing VOCs.
8) If you wish to use adhesives, use only a low VOC emitting
product. "There are no standards for VOCs, but EPA flooring
guidelines say that no product should have VOC levels of .6 or more,"
according to Frank O'Neill, editor of Carpet and Rug Industry. "The
adhesives used in direct glue down installations present a much
greater air pollution problem [than carpet itself, which generally
falls below the .6 VOC level advocated by EPA], with a VOC emission
rate of 88.6" (37) Among the low VOC emitting carpet adhesives are
AFM Carpet Adhesive, available from N.E.E.D.S. (see below) and
Envirotec Adhesive and Auro Adhesive, both available from Hendricksen
Naturlich Flooring Interiors.
9) Steam-cleaning is not a solution for toxic carpets according to
Dr. Anderson. The moisture seems to help for a few days, but as soon
as the carpet dries, the problem comes back.
10) The least-toxic forms of flooring available are tile, true
linoleum, and hardwood. For more information on pesticide-free
hardwood and true linoleum sources, refer to the Home and Office
Resoruce Forum in this issue.
11) Your home or office should have adequate ventilation on an
ongoing basis. Airpurifiers can help reduce total VOCs. Carbon
filters are avialable from N.E.E.D.S. "NonScents," a nontoxic
molecular adsorber for air purification is available form The Dasun
Co. "The Molecular Adsorber" is available from CYA Products Inc.
The following are some of the companies that sell woven wool carpet,
low VOC emitting carpet adhesive, air filters, and purifiers:
Bremworth Carpets
1940 Olivera Rd.
Suite C
Concord, CA 94520
(800) 227-3408
woven wool carpet, jute backing or polypropylene backing
The Dasun Company
P.O. Box 668
Escondido, CA 92033
(800) 433-8929
"NonScents" molecular adsorber
Desso Carpet
P.O. Box 1351
Wayne, PA 19087
(800) 368-1515
woven wool carpet, just or polypropylene backing
(further surface treatment is optional)
Foreign Accent
2825E Boradbent Pkwy. N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87107
(505) 344-4833
woven wool area rugs
Gordon T. Sands Ltd.
40 Torbay Rd.
Markham, Ontario L3R 1G6
(416) 475-6380
woven wool carpet, commercial felt carpet pad
Helios Carpet
P.O. Box 1928
Calhoun, Georgia 30703
(800) 843-5138
woven wool carpet
Hendricksen Naturlich Flooring Interiors
6761 Sebastopol Ave., Suite 7
Sebastopol, CA 95472-3805
(707) 829-3959
natural wool carpet, jute padding constructed without glue,
Auro Adhesive (contains no petrochemicals),
Envirotec Adhesive, true linoleum
H & I Carpet Corp.
115 Dupont St.
Toronto, Ontario M5R 1V4
(416) 961-6891
woven wool carpet
N.E.E.D.S.
527 Charles Ave.
Syracuse, NY 13209
(800) 634-1380
AFM Carpet Adhesive (low VOC carpet adhesive), air filters
CYA Products Inc.
211 Robbins Lane
Syosset, NY 11791
(516) 681-9394
References
1. Letter to Jocelyn McIvers from Lori Grant, Monsanto Company, July
18, 1991.
2. "Carpet Offgassing and Lethal Effects on Mice." Anderson
Laboratories press release, August 18, 1992.
3. CBS "Street Stories," October 29, 1992. Transcript by Burrelle's
Information Services (pp. 17-23).
4. "Chronology -- EPA and Its Professionals, Union Involvement with
Carpet." Compiled by Bill Hirzy, Ph.D., EPA Senior Scientist,
president of EPA Union Local 2050 (1992).
5. "Carpet Policy Dialogue Executive Summary and Compendium Report."
Edited by R.W. Leukrothe, Jr., Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C., September 27, 1991.
6. Memorandum from Susan E. Womble, Project Manage, CPSC Chemical
Hazards Program: Evaluation of Complaints Associated with the
Installation of New Carpet, August 13, 1990.
7. New York State Department of Law; Abrams, R.; et al. Petition to
U.S. CPSC: "To Establish Mandatory Safety Standards for Rugs,
Carpets, and Carpet Systems, and to Conduct Research to Determine
Additional Safety Standards," April 10, 1991.
8. Letter from Jerry G. Thorn, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
CPSC, to Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York.
Re: Response to Robert Abrams's April 10, 1991, Request for CPSC to
Issue a Safety Standard for Carpet Systems, December 23, 1991.
9. Request form Dan Morales, Texas Attorney General, to Jerry Thorn,
General Counsel of U.S. CPSC on Behalf of Attorneys General from 25
States that CPSC Docket the New York Attorney General's April 1991
Petition Regarding Carpet Safety Standards, December 23, 1991.
10. Testing results for Christopher McIvers from Immunosciences Lab.,
Inc., January 27, 1993.
11. Telephone interview with Anthony Pollina, Rep. Bernard Sanders's
aide, June 17, 1993.
12. New York State Department of Law and Abrams, R. "Abrams calls
Green Seal Program on the Carpet for Misleading Safety Claims."
Press release, June 10, 1993.
13. "Indoor Air quality and Work Environment Study: EPA Headquarters
Buildings," "Vol. 4: Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Health,
Comfort, and Odor Perceptions as Related to Personal and Workplace
Characteristics." (EPA Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory, 21M-3004, June 1991).
14. Opening statement by Sen. Mike Synar, Chairman, Environment,
Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government
Operations, U.S. House of Representatives. Re: carpet research,
June 11, 1993.
15. "Indoor Air Quality and New Carpet--What You Should Know"
(EPA/560/2-91/003, March 1992)
16. CBS "Evening News," October 29, 1992. Re: Toxic Carpet and
Anderson Labs. Transcript by Burrelle's Information Services (pp.
7-9).
17. Testimony of Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, before the
Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Environment,
Energy, and Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. Re:
carpet research, June 11, 1993.
18. Telephone interview with Rosalind Anderson, Ph.D., Anderson Labs,
June 17, 1993.
19. Telephone interview with Bill Hirzy, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and
President of EPA Union Local 2050, June 23, 1993.
20. "Carpet Industry Agrees to New Warning Labels at U.S. House
Hearing, Sanders Criticizes Environmental Protection Agency for
Dragging Its Heels." Press release from Rep. Bernard Sanders, June
11, 1993.
21. Testimony of Ronald E. VanGelderen, president of the Carpet and
Rug Institute, before the Committee on Government Operations,
Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, U.S.
House of Representatives. Re: carpet research, June 11, 1993.
22. "CRI Calls for Meaningful Indoor Air Quality Research." Carpet
and Rug Institute press release, June 11, 1993.
23. Consumer Product Safety Commission Memorandum and Final Report
from Interagency Agreement on Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions
from Carpets, (CPSC-IAG-90-1256, August 13, 1993, pp. 60-62).
24. Testimony of Yves Alarie before the Committee on Government
Operations, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. Re: carpet research,
June 11, 1993.
25. Telephone interview with Charles Auer, director of Chemical
Control Division, EPA.
26. Beebe, G. "Toxic Carpet III." Available from P.O. Box 39344,
Cincinnati, OH 45239.
27. Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy before the Committee on
Government Operations, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. Re:
carpet research, June 11, 1993.
28. Duehring, C. "Unraveling the Carpet-Toxicity Problem."
"Environment and Health" (Winter 1993).
29. Abrams, R. "Consumer Alert: Chemicals in New CArpets Pose
Potential Health Hazard," April 1991.
30. Letter to Charles Fitzgerald from K. Burton, Claims Manager,
Mannington Carpets, Calhoun, Ga., May 27, 1992, with enclosure:
"Environmental Chamber Test Report" from Air Quality Services, Inc.,
May 19, 1992.
31. "Carpet Industry Program Steps out Front on Indoor Air Quality:
Labeling for Consumers Now Underway." Carpet and Rug Institute press
release, July 17, 1992.
32. Carpet Screening Test Report (ALI Test No. 79) by Anderson
Laboratories, Inc., for Kevin and Jocelyn McIvers, November 6, 1993.
33. Anderson, R.C. "Toxic Emissions from Carpets." Indoor Air '93,
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on indoor Air Quality
and Climate 1:651-56 (1993).
34. "To the Carpet Industry: Typically Asked Questions and Suggested
Responses" (Carpet and Rug Institute, "CArpet/Indoor Air Quality Fact
Sheet," April 1993).
35. Abrams, R.; Amestoy, J.L.; et al. "Carpets and Indoor Air: What
You Should Know." (June 1993).
36. Testimony of Rosalind Anderson before Committee on Government
Operations, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. Re: carpet research,
June 11, 1993.
37. O'Neill, F. "The Environment and the Carpet Industry." Carpet
and Rug Industry. pp. 33-34, (January 1991).